Ruin of Esagila chronicle (BCHP 6)

Coin of Antiochus I Soter (Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara)

The Babylonian
Ruin
of Esagila
chronicle (BCHP 6) is one of the historiographical texts from ancient
Babylonia.
It describes how a Seleucid
crown prince (probably Antiochus,
the son of king Seleucus Nicator) fell during a sacrifice on the ruin of
Esagila.

The cuneiform tablets (BM 32248 + 32456
+ 32477 + 32543 + 76-11-17 unnumbered) are in the British
Museum. On this website, a new reading is proposed by
Bert
van der Spek of the Free University of Amsterdam (Netherlands) and
Irving Finkel of the British Museum. Please notice that this is a preliminary
version of what will be the chronicle's very first
edition. This web publication is therefore intended to invite suggestions
for better readings, comments and interpretations (go here
to contact Van der Spek).

Commentary reverse

The reverse is very difficult to read and defies a reasonable translation.
It is hardly a normal chronicle text, but looks more like the minutes of
a court proceeding. The script is very careless and probably contains many
mistakes. The chronicle is written in crude signs, which are often difficult
to read even if they are not damaged. So it looks as though the text was
written by an unexperienced hand, and it may have been a school text.

The section starting with line 3’ deals with a serious conflict. Somebody
may have been arrested in order to be put to death. The son of the king
seems to intend to release him, but another man tries to prevent that by
denouncing him, apparently in fear of the fact that the person to be released
will in turn denounce the denouncer. The charge had something to do with
workmen who did not do their job correctly and the question seems to be:
who is responsible? The son of the king is invited to take a look himself.
It may perhaps have to do with problems with the workmen working on the
restoration of Esagila
and Ezida
(see obverse). Perhaps there was some sabotage.

2’
Incidents with dogs occur often in the Astronomical
diaries. They were treated as ominous events.

3’lúi-te-ri-šú-pa-ta-nu possibly an Iranian
title. The element pa-ta may be a rendering of pati, 'leader'.
A possible candidate is the *âthravapati, mentioned by Briant
(1996, 260).

4’pi-ri-il-tum = pirištum ("secret") is a possible interpretation,
but not certain. Another word or a female personal name may also be at
issue. One might also consider a mistake for piri@tu, "lie".

5’
The CAD distinguishes a single interrogative word akkâ’iki,
"how much?" (CAD A1, 274a) from akkâ’i A, interr. "how",
with kî, "how, to what extent, for what reason," and from
akkâ’i
B, adv. "as soon as", but also always constructed with
kî
(CAD A1, 272-2). In AD III, p. 454. no. –87C: 30’ the expression
ak-ka-’-i
šá is used to introduce the indirect speech: the content of
a letter, which is read out loud in the theatre. A similar kind of usage
may be at stake here. Here it would be the content of the slander mentioned
in line 4’.

9’, 15’, 16’lúLAGABxIM does not exist, but LAGABxIM = BUN = nappahtu
= "revolution" (CAD N1, 306). LAGABxIM is also the ideographical
writing of nappahu = "bellows" (used by smiths) (ibid. 307). úLAGABxIM
may then either mean "revolutionary; rebel" or "metal worker" (= nappâhu,
of which the standard ideographical writing, however, is SIMUG).